> > As an
> > open source project, coreboot doesn't have anywhere near the resources
> > to do enough QA to guarantee that the tip of the master branch (or any
> > branch or tag, for that matter) was stable enough to be shipped in a
> > product at any point in time... even Linux cannot do that,
On 5/5/21 10:56 PM, Julius Werner wrote:
Hi Julius,
> Sorry for being a bit late here, but I wanted to second what Nico
> said. It's important to not add undue burden to the development
> process. I think the master branch is meant for development, not for
> shipping long-term stable products.
Sorry for being a bit late here, but I wanted to second what Nico
said. It's important to not add undue burden to the development
process. I think the master branch is meant for development, not for
shipping long-term stable products. If you're installing coreboot in a
train or medical device,
Zeh, Werner wrote:
> there are cases where the calculated and reported timing can be
> suitable for a given speed in coreboot and a speed switch to HIGH
> in OS ... will lead to a different timing, worse case not matching
> the hardware circumstances and therefore ending up in violating
> the I2C
AFAIK it shouldn't. No idea what can be wrong.. Maybe you could share
your coreboot config and I may find something there?
Best regards,
--
Michał Żygowski
Firmware Engineer
https://3mdeb.com | @3mdeb_com
On 5/3/21 3:38 PM, lain via coreboot wrote:
> I tried two different firmware roms but
5 matches
Mail list logo
